The excellent article in the January number of the Classical Quarterly upon a mistaken interpretation of Philebus 31 c contains the somewhat incorrect statement that this interpretation is the general one: and the article itself is anticipated by a short note in a paper which I published in the Transactions of the Oxford Philological Society for 1881–2. I have nothing to complain of, for it may partly serve me right. Besides, my paper, though duly registered in the Revue de Philologie, (...) is omitted from the index of that periodical; the aforesaid Transactions are out of print, and by some mischance my correction of the wrong rendering did not appear in the last edition of Jowett's Plato, though Jowett intended it should. (shrink)

In the last number of the Journal of Philology a change of punctuation in Sophist 244 C, together with a new interpretation, is proposed. To this serious exception must be taken; or perhaps not too serious, because the proposal can hardly be due to anything but haste and want of revision.It is not only in disagreement with a familiar idiom, but is easily seen to be inconsistent with the context, which can have barely received attention.The passage is as follows: ξE.

The whole of the Pylos campaign is intimately connected with the local topography. Pritchett has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the land in this area has sunk since classical times, and hence there is much about the campaign that needs re-examination. We confine ourselves here to a consideration of the Spartan plan to block the entrances, as given in Thucydides. Some points relevant to this turn on a more detailed examination of the site itself, which we were able to conduct (...) in the summers of 1967 and 1968. (shrink)